Posted on 05/12/2013 8:16:39 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
"Computers aboard the International Space Station are to be switched from Windows XP to the Linux operating system in an attempt to improve stability and reliability.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable – one that would give us in-house control. So if we needed to patch, adjust or adapt, we could," "
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable”
Sorry. I just had to post this quote again.
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable”
Yea. It felt good to post what I’ve always known...
“We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable”
heh, heh
and Windows XP has less than a year of support left
Umm... it’s WINDOWS XP! Windows XP, even x64, doesn’t natively support newer hardware, and with all of the kernel patching that’s been done over the years to “fix vulnerabilities,” I’m surprised the damn OS even boots. It’s been revealed that over 95% of the original XP kernel is now closed, leaving very small areas exposed for crucial system functionality. The Server 2003/Vista/Win7/8 kernel is completely encapsulated and thus more stable and secure than XP ever was or will be.
That being said, I applaud space agencies going over to Linux, but I’d be wary knowing that Linux requires a completely different set of support skills over Windows. I hope they have the technical resources to backup this change.
Why would they be running critical systems on a desktop OS. That is crazy. That being said 2008R2 is every bit as reliable as Linux. Patching and maintaining patching is easier too.
any one who writes software FOR A LIVING (like I do0 know and has always known that Linux is a superior operating system, it is just not user-friendly as windows and not in as many locations, and people pay me to wrote to windows.
I never could understand the Linux Zealots who need to do the victory dance any time someone says Linux is better.
It’s OK anyone who does this professionally knows this! but you are NOT going to get grandma to install the latest unbunto distro in order to get email pictures of her grandkids.
Most of the “open source” fanatics I have known (”free software for all!”) are also flaming libtards, who work on their own pet open-source ‘free’ Linux products while getting paid on some one else’s time.
I imagine they do have the support skills - and that there will be less support needed. Whole countries have switched over the years, so the way is certainly paved.
What? Can’t the just close and open windows if they have a problem?
Mr. K,
I think your comments are generally spot on.
Still, Windows is a target rich environment... I’m glad some of the money it generates goes to conservatives before Gates spends the profits on liberal causes. At least you siphon some off for good things.
The US Navy ran (and for all I know, still runs) warships on Windows NT.
Well duh! Wouldn’t be a good omen for a space station to be running a computer system that crashes all the time.
Can you imagine the blue screen of death locking your computer while hurtling through space? Or the MS support guy in india telling you it is time to reinstall the operating system, while you attempt to control a small living environment in space?
“Oh, yes! If you have not reinstalled the system in a year, it is most certainly time. I will walk you through it...”
The bottom line is that off the shelf software like Windows has far too much junk that they don’t want and need, but Linux can be tailor made.
The great lesson came with I believe one of the Voyager missions, that had only a tiny computer with 64K of RAM. NASA had to completely rewrite its operating system several times, while it was in flight, trying to get every possible bit of functionality out of it.
A “blue screen of death”, even once, could be disastrous, and there is no possibility of rewriting Windows enroute, so add it all up, and Linux is the way to go.
Importantly, this will not be the common version of Linux at all, and they will be constantly jiggering and testing new versions for stability back on Earth, long before there are any updates to active spacecraft or probes.
If they really needed a stable environment they wouldn’t be using Linux but an RTOS like Integrity, something certified as perfectly stable, not some hackers tool like Linux.
This is just some engineers personal preference.
I don’t think the space station has windows or at least ones that can be opened.
Bingo.
Sorry but this does not make sense on a practical or safety factor. I could see the change if the original software was Windows 8 or even 7 but changing from a rock solid XP doesn’t make sense. Especially since most known instances of instability were on systems running multiple disparate programs, internet browsers and sprinkled with a plethora of divergent hardware drivers.
The Space Station in comparison is a virtually closed system with an extremely restricted hardware spec sheet and one that doesn’t visit porn sites.
Changing a software system now is like permitting someone to interrupt me when I pack for a two week vacation. Invariably something gets forgotten, overlooked or wrongly packed.
I am not an IT but I play one in my business everyday.
A large number of the supercomputers around the globe run Linux....most of those that don't use various versions of Unix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.